[Previous entry: "Silencing the soldiers"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Napalm by another name"]
08/08/2003 Archived Entry: "Iraq-Nam"
The term "Iraq-Nam" is starting to crop up in news stories, especially in connection with guerrilla attacks on US troops. At a rate of two deaths a day, at least 1,000 more American troops will be killed in Iraq before the Presidential election in November, 2004. The death toll in Vietnam was remarkably higher, of course, but it was the pivotal factor in turning America against the war and in Johnson's decision not to seek a second term. An interesting difference between Vietname and Iraq: the media is giving far more exposure to each death in Iraq than it ever did (or could have) to each death in Vietnam; the news is putting a name and a face to every dead soldier, making it personal and more wrenching. As Justin Raimondo comments in his article *US Troops in Iraq are Sitting Ducks: Why we need to get out – now*, "It was big news that, for two days, there were no reports of U.S. combat casualties..." The statement "no deaths" today led major news broadcasts from channel to channel. I have no doubt that Bush, unlike Johnson, will seek a second term whatever happens...but the continuing death rate seems to be the reason he is willing to consider reducing the American presence in Iraq. Could Wolfowitz's recent and startling admission that Iraq was not involved in 9-11 terrorist attacks and has no ties to Al-Qaeda be part of opening the door for an American withdrawal from the nation?
Meanwhile, stories of "soldier abuse" by the Bush administration keep cropping up. Yesterday's blog explored how soldiers in Iraq were being silenced and/or punished for speaking out about the actual conditions under they are functioning. Now: "The father of a soldier who died of pneumonia this spring said Thursday the Army has excluded her death from its investigation of deadly pneumonia because it wants to cover up vaccine side effects....The Army said 100 soldiers have gotten pneumonia in Iraq and southwestern Asia, two of those have died and another 13 have had to be put on respirators. Soldiers do not have the option of refusing the controversial vaccine. For years, reports have circulated re: problems with the various vaccines being administered. For example, in February 2000, Dr. Jeffrey P. Kahn stated in a CNN article entitled *Guinea Pig Soldiers?*, "Prompted by worries that Iraq and other rogue nations have and might use biological weapons, the Department of Defense has been vaccinating all active and reserve soldiers against anthrax. The program began in 1998, and has so far inoculated 400,000 out of 2.4 million military personnel. A few hundred soldiers have refused the six-injection regimen, saying it hasn't been proven either safe or effective and that they are unlikely to fight against the few nations that have such bio-warfare capabilities.Of those already vaccinated, almost 500 have reported reactions to it. In response, the military has court-martialed soldiers who refuse the vaccination, and there are reports that some National Guard pilots are choosing to resign rather than accept the vaccine."
The National Post has an interesting five-part series on the headaches incurred by towns that straddle the Canadian-US border in the wake of new "security" demands that interfere with business and personal contacts. This is part two.
On a personal note...Sam, our recuperating Black German Shepherd, continues to do well. So well, in fact, that he is growing palpably impatient with having his freedom to romp restricted -- a necessary measure since his stapled incision is about two feet long, running over 1/2 the length of his body. Fussy or not, he will continue to be a house-prisoner who goes out only on a leash for another three weeks. As for his steady, reproachful gaze...."Things are tough all over, Sam."
Best to all,
mac